{"id":1208,"date":"2023-12-15T14:35:32","date_gmt":"2023-12-15T09:05:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1208"},"modified":"2023-12-15T14:36:20","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T09:06:20","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-the-offence-punishable-under-section-120-b-of-the-ipc-will-become-a-scheduled-offence-only-if-the-conspiracy-alleged-is-of-committing-an-offence-which-is-specifically-included","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-the-offence-punishable-under-section-120-b-of-the-ipc-will-become-a-scheduled-offence-only-if-the-conspiracy-alleged-is-of-committing-an-offence-which-is-specifically-included\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically included in the Schedule."},"content":{"rendered":"

Pavana Dibbur\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>(Appellant)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0The Directorate of Enforcement\u00a0 <\/strong>( Respondent)<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2779 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by Abhay S. Oka J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The respondent\u2013the\u00a0\u00a0 Directorate\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Enforcement (for short, \u2018ED\u2019), filed a complaint under the second proviso to Section\u00a0\u00a0 45(1)\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Prevention\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Money\u00a0\u00a0 Laundering\u00a0\u00a0 Act, 2002 before the Special Court for PMLA Cases\u00a0\u00a0 at\u00a0\u00a0 Bengaluru.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0\u00a0 appellant\u2013Pavana\u00a0\u00a0 Dibbur\u00a0\u00a0 was shown as accused no.6 in the said complaint.\u00a0 By the order dated 17th March 2022, the Special Court took cognisance of the said complaint.\u00a0 The appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 of the\u00a0\u00a0 Code\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Criminal\u00a0\u00a0 Procedure, 1973\u00a0\u00a0 seeking the relief of quashing of the said complaint.\u00a0 By the impugned judgment and order dated 27th September 2022, the petition for quashing the complaint has been dismissed.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the court has rightly dismissed the quashing petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong> Ms\u00a0\u00a0 Meenakshi\u00a0\u00a0 Arora<\/p>\n

The\u00a0\u00a0 learned\u00a0\u00a0 senior\u00a0\u00a0 counsel appearing for the appellant, firstly submitted that the first and\u00a0\u00a0 second\u00a0\u00a0 properties\u00a0\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 not\u00a0\u00a0 tainted\u00a0\u00a0 properties\u00a0\u00a0 and, therefore, the\u00a0\u00a0 same\u00a0\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 not\u00a0\u00a0 covered\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 definition\u00a0\u00a0 of \u201cproceeds\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 crime\u201d under clause (u)\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 sub\u00adsection\u00a0\u00a0 (1)\u00a0\u00a0 of Section 2 of the PMLA.\u00a0\u00a0 The learned senior counsel pointed out that the first property was acquired on 1st\u00a0 July 2013, much prior to the commission of the first scheduled offence. The allegation in the FIR dated 11th\u00a0 November 2017 against accused no.1\u00a0 is that he collected a sum of about Rs.107 crores\u00a0\u00a0 from\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 students\u00a0\u00a0 between\u00a0\u00a0 January\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 November 2017\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 transferred\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 said\u00a0\u00a0 amount\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 his\u00a0\u00a0 account. Therefore, the appellant’s acquisition of the first property can never be linked with the proceeds of the crime regarding the scheduled\u00a0\u00a0 offence.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 She\u00a0\u00a0 submitted\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 regarding\u00a0\u00a0 the acquisition of the second property, the appellant had her own resources available to acquire the same.\u00a0 The learned senior counsel\u00a0\u00a0 relied\u00a0\u00a0 upon\u00a0\u00a0 an\u00a0\u00a0 Income\u00a0\u00a0 Tax\u00a0\u00a0 Return\u00a0\u00a0 filed\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the appellant under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, by which\u00a0\u00a0 she\u00a0\u00a0 declared\u00a0\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 total\u00a0\u00a0 undisclosed\u00a0\u00a0 income\u00a0\u00a0 of Rs.26,42,54,193\/\u00ad.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0\u00a0 appellant\u00a0\u00a0 paid\u00a0\u00a0 Rs.11,89,08,385\/\u00ad towards income tax and penalty on 8th September 2016.\u00a0 The return\u00a0\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 filed\u00a0\u00a0 on\u00a0\u00a0 12th\u00a0 September\u00a0 2016. Therefore, the appellant had a source of money for acquiring the second property for the consideration of Rs.2.47 crores.\u00a0\u00a0 Both the properties acquired by the appellant had no nexus at all with the proceeds of crime of the scheduled offences.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong> Shri S.V. Raju<\/p>\n

The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the ED, submitted that even assuming that the appellant\u00a0\u00a0 had\u00a0\u00a0 monetary\u00a0\u00a0 capacity\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 acquire\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 second property, one cannot conclude that the funds siphoned by the accused no.1, which constitute proceeds of crime, were not used by the appellant for acquiring the second property.\u00a0 He submits that this issue can be gone into only at the time of trial.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Regarding\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 second\u00a0\u00a0 submission, the\u00a0\u00a0 learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that a person can be held guilty of the commission of a money laundering offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, even if he is not shown as an accused in the predicate offence.\u00a0\u00a0 He submitted that it is apparent from the provision of Section 3 of the PMLA that in a given case, a person who is not an accused in the predicate offence\u00a0\u00a0 can\u00a0\u00a0 commit\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 offence\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 money\u00a0\u00a0 laundering. Regarding\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 third submission, the\u00a0\u00a0 learned\u00a0\u00a0 Additional Solicitor\u00a0\u00a0 General\u00a0\u00a0 submitted\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 wherever\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 legislature intended, it has made a particular offence read with another offence as a scheduled offence.\u00a0\u00a0 He invited our attention to Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Part A of the Schedule to the PMLA. Referring to Paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the PMLA, he urged that the first four offences in Paragraph 4 and all the offences\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 Paragraph\u00a0\u00a0 6\u00a0\u00a0 clearly\u00a0\u00a0 show\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 legislature’s intention.\u00a0 He submitted that the schedule must be read as it is, and nothing can be added or subtracted from the Schedule considering the objects of the PMLA.\u00a0 He submitted that the validity of the Schedule has been upheld in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for with the impugned order.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cIt is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must\u00a0\u00a0 have\u00a0\u00a0 been\u00a0\u00a0 shown\u00a0\u00a0 as\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 accused\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 the scheduled offence. Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the\u00a0\u00a0 PMLA\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 not\u00a0\u00a0 an\u00a0\u00a0 accused\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 accused\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 scheduled\u00a0\u00a0 offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. The\u00a0\u00a0 first\u00a0\u00a0 property\u00a0\u00a0 cannot\u00a0\u00a0 be\u00a0\u00a0 said\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 have\u00a0\u00a0 any connection with the proceeds of the crime as the acts\u00a0\u00a0 constituting\u00a0\u00a0 scheduled\u00a0\u00a0 offence\u00a0\u00a0 were committed after the property was acquired. The\u00a0\u00a0 issue\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 whether\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 appellant\u00a0\u00a0 has\u00a0\u00a0 used tainted\u00a0\u00a0 money\u00a0\u00a0 forming\u00a0\u00a0 part\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 proceeds\u00a0\u00a0 of crime for acquiring the second property can be decided only at the time of trial. The offence punishable under Section 120\u00adB of the IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy\u00a0\u00a0 alleged\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 committing\u00a0\u00a0 an\u00a0\u00a0 offence which is specifically included in the Schedule.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pavana Dibbur\u00a0 \u00a0(Appellant)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0The Directorate of Enforcement\u00a0 ( Respondent) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2779 OF 2023 (2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by Abhay S. Oka J.) Facts: The respondent\u2013the\u00a0\u00a0 Directorate\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Enforcement (for short, \u2018ED\u2019), filed a complaint under the second proviso to Section\u00a0\u00a0 45(1)\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Prevention\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Money\u00a0\u00a0 Laundering\u00a0\u00a0 Act, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1209,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1208"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1212,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208\/revisions\/1212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1209"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}